Israel needs US backing

Presumably, Barack Obama would have preferred socks or a tie he could toss into a drawer and forget. President George W. Bush and the world are more generous. In less than three weeks, Obama will ascend in fashion surreal and circumstances preternatural, his predecessor bequeathing upon him war on two fronts, recession and a 14-figure deficit. Now come Hamas and Israel bearing gifts.

Having mysteriously wearied of the barrage of missiles fired from the direction of Gaza, Israel has responded in kind, strafing the strip in a series of air raids, killing hundreds. So the world rises, wagging fingers and waxing sanctimonious. Israel’s response, say the United Nations and others, has been to wield a ball peen hammer when a rolled-up newspaper would do. This is what Bush might call a misunderstimation of Hamas, a group not especially familiar with reason.

Recall that Hamas had agreed to halt attacks as part of a cease-fire earlier this year but only reduced — rather than ceased — fire. When the accord expired a week ago, Hamas once more fired up the missiles. Israel’s seeming intent is an understandable one: crush Hamas, definitively and finally, and then perhaps the bloodshed might end.

What is more likely is that Israel will at some point restrain its hand as global outrage rings louder. Obama’s position, vestiges of which have appeared, could affect this. Bush has been among Israel’s few supporters, but one of import. Obama, given the sheen his image retains and his leftward tilt, would be one of far greater significance.

During a trip to the Mideast over the summer, Obama was unwavering in backing Israel. “We stand ... with all the people of Israel,” he said. Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel – his middle name is Israel – as chief of staff is seen as an indicator of sincerity on this point. Though the story that he served in the Israeli Army is false, Emanuel’s affection for Israel is deep and plainly known. He can be expected to influence Obama to consider carefully Israel’s position.

Americans learned painfully in 2001 the danger of assuming rationality in the minds of terrorists. The threat of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network had smoldered since an initial attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and subsequent bombings of a U.S. embassy in East Africa and of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen. U.S. military strikes ordered by President Bill Clinton after the embassy bombing are, from hindsight’s view, laughable for their inefficacy.

Israel and America know what too much of the world does not, that sensible negotiations – which generally include both sides giving inches – are not feasible in the case of terrorists. The options are without nuance: victory or defeat. Bush understands little but understands this. We do not concur with the decision to invade Iraq but we recognize the unique threat of radical Islamism and the necessity of confronting the madness.

As Joe Biden predicted, Obama’s mettle is likely to be tested by America’s enemies. The surge in terrorist activity abroad since his election is perhaps a precursor. The president-elect is right to keep silent until Bush moves aside. He also would be right to echo Bush’s – and his own – backing of Israel. Terrorists should know they will find here neither mercy nor sympathy. This would swiftly demonstrate that among many traits esteemed in Obama is a toughness that America’s enemies should not misunderstimate.